FPSLREB Decisions

Decided on the basis of written submissions filed and submissions
at a teleconference with the parties on January 25, 2016.

INTERIM DECISION

I. Application before the Board

1        Section 22 of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act provides that the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (“the Board”) may decide any matter before it without holding an oral hearing. Having reviewed all the material on file, the Board is satisfied that the documentation before it is sufficient for it to decide the matter without holding an oral hearing.

Employer, intervenor status

2        Shortly after the application was received by the Board, counsel for the bargaining agent contacted the Board to relay its contact information. In that letter, counsel referred to the employer as a party in the file, although no request for intervenor status was formally made by the employer. I have reviewed the file and in accordance with prior Board practice in several cases, I have decided to name the employer as a party in this file, prorio motu. Both the applicant and the respondent have, throughout this file, proceeded on the assumption that the employer should be involved in this file and on this basis, submissions have been received from it. As both the applicant and respondent are in agreement on this matter and given the present context and circumstances, I have therefore decided to accord intervenor status to the employer for the purposes of this decision.

II. Background

3        On October 26, 2015, Ajay Lala (“the applicant”) filed an application that was signed on October 19, 2015, for revocation of certification under section 94 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act (S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2; “the Act”) with respect to a bargaining unit for which the respondent, United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 401, was certified.

4        The reason recited in support of the application was that the employee organization no longer represented a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit.

5        United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 401, was certified by the Public Service Staff Relations Board as the bargaining agent for all employees in the operational category employed at the Canadian Forces Base in Edmonton, Alberta, except Managers/Category II employees, on 26 September 1985.

6        The employer is her Majesty in Right of Canada as represented by the Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces, CFB Edmonton, Edmonton, Alberta.

7        The bargaining unit includes employees who work at the CFB Edmonton mess halls, fitness centre, hockey arena, CANEX Expressmart, liquor and retail stores, and golf and curling clubs.

8        The bargaining agent and the employer were parties to a collective agreement, which commenced on July 1, 2012 and which expired on June 30, 2015 (“the collective agreement”). The bargaining agent had provided the employer with notice to bargain on March 4, 2015.

9        On November 2, 2015, the Board directed the employer to post a notice in the workplace advising of the application and establishing a closing date of December 2, 2015, to allow affected employees who were in opposition to the application to file a statement of opposition in accordance with the Public Service Labour Relations Board Regulations (SOR/2005-79; “the Regulations”).

10        On December 2, 2015, the employer confirmed to the Board that the notice to employees of the application for revocation of certification had been posted in the employer’s workplace from November 4, 2015, until December 2, 2015.

11        On December 2, 2015, the bargaining agent wrote to the Board, including its submissions in reply to the application. For the reasons outlined in its submissions, the bargaining agent requested that the Board dismiss the application due to employer dominance and inappropriate intervention in the process.

12        The bargaining agent submitted that should the Board choose not to exercise its discretion to dismiss the application, it would request a hearing with a full three-member panel to address the merits of the application; request a pre-hearing resolution conference in person before any vote is held to address procedural issues, including voting rules, eligibility, and preliminary substantive issues; and request an order requiring the employer to produce a list of all employees in the bargaining unit, complete with contact information and signatures, in order to verify the veracity of the application for revocation.

13        On December 8, 2015, the Chairperson of the Board appointed David Olsen, Vice-Chairperson, as a panel to hear and determine the application for revocation.

14        On December 21, 2015, the Board wrote to the parties, directing that the employer provide to the Board a list of all employees in the bargaining unit together with specimen signatures and home addresses as of October 26, 2015, pursuant to section 44 of the Regulations; and within 15 days of that, the applicant and the respondent were to file submissions with the Board concerning who was in the bargaining unit as of October 26, 2015.

15        The applicant and the employer were directed to provide submissions in response to the bargaining agent’s request that the Board dismiss the application due to employer dominance and inappropriate intervention in the process.

16        On January 7, 2016, the Board received from the employer a list of employees in the bargaining unit as of October 26, 2015, together with the home addresses and specimen signatures of each employee.

17        On January 13, 2016, the Board advised the parties that upon review of the initiating documents filed in support of the application, specifically the evidence that purported to demonstrate at least 40% of the employees in the bargaining unit were in support of the application, they were insufficient since what the Board had in its possession was a package of individual applications for revocation on the Board’s form 5, each separate form providing the name, mailing address, telephone number, and email address of the employees that supported the application.

18        The Board advised the applicant that the completed forms did not in themselves constitute evidence in support of the application and directed that the applicant file his evidence by way of a written statement from each employee indicating that he or she supported the application for revocation of certification together with an address and a signature.

19        On January 14, 2016, the bargaining agent wrote to the Board objecting to what it characterized as the applicant being given a second opportunity to file evidence in support of the application. The bargaining agent also objected to the applicant being afforded an unduly extended period during which he might potentially add support to the initial application and requested that the application be dismissed immediately.

20        On January 16, 2016, the Board received the applicant’s and the employer’s submissions in response to the bargaining agent’s position that the application should be dismissed due to employer dominance and inappropriate intervention in the process and listing which employees were in the bargaining unit as of October 26, 2015. The Board provided an opportunity to the bargaining agent to respond by February 1, 2016.

21        On January 18, 2016, the employer wrote to the Board, expressing concern about the process, and it requested a teleconference with the Board and the other parties to discuss the application.

22        On January 20, 2016, the Board wrote to the parties, noting that there appeared to be some misunderstanding as to the intent of its instructions and stating that it was not allowing the applicant an opportunity to expand the scope of the application or to solicit additional support from other employees. Rather, the Board was requiring the applicant to provide a signed statement in support of the application from each employee for whom a Form 5 had been provided in the original application. The Board also advised that it was prepared to convene a teleconference with the parties on Friday, January 22, 2016.

23        A teleconference was held on Monday, January 25, 2016, at which time the Board heard the parties, discussed the letter of January 20, 2016, and addressed questions concerning the application.

24        The applicant’s representative advised the Board that he had believed that the completed Form 5s without the employees’ signatures was sufficient evidence of employee support. He stated that he had in his possession individual signed letters from each of the employees that supported the application, all dated before the date of the application. The Board urged the applicant’s representative to file this evidence supporting the application as soon as possible.

25         The applicant’s representative subsequently advised the Board on April 8, 2016 that in the early stages of filing the application for revocation of certification prior to October 26, 2015 he was told on an information call to the PSLREB to have employees complete form five which could be found on the PSLREB website. It was his understanding that the applicant only had to provide the form five’s which it did prior to October 26, 2015

26        On February 1, 2016, the Board received from the applicant’s representative statements from the employees in support of the application for revocation of certification.

27        A review of the statements revealed that they were all individual letters dated before the date of the application, October 25, 2015, each bearing the signature of the employee and stating each employee’s personal reasons for supporting the application. The Board compared the signatures with the specimen signatures of the employees provided by the employer and is satisfied that the signatures are authentic.

28        The applicant subsequently advised the Board that he provided the letters to the PSLREB as requested and as directed without any additional employees being added despite the fact that additional employees of the bargaining unit came forward and asked to be included.

29        On March 16, 2016 the Board wrote to the parties further to its direction outlined in its letter of December 21, 2015 advising that while it had been noted that the bargaining agent had raised a number of issues that could lead to dismissal and that the issue of timeliness remains undetermined, in the event the application proceeded it was providing the applicant and the bargaining agent with the employer’s list of employees in the bargaining unit as of October 26, 2015 which had been received by the Board on January 7, 2016.

30        The Board requested that the applicant and the bargaining agent file their comments concerning the list, other than the submissions already filed with the Board, no later than April 1, 2016.

31        On April 1, 2016 the bargaining agent filed its submissions in respect of the list of employees in the bargaining unit as of 26 October 2015. It was the position of the bargaining agent that the list of employees excluded at least one employee that should have been included and included two employees that should have been excluded.

32        On April 8, 2016 the applicant responded to the bargaining agents submissions in respect of the list of employees in the bargaining unit as of October 26, 2016.

33        There are a number of issues that must be addressed at this juncture.

A. Issue 1

34        Should the application be dismissed on the basis that the initiating documents accompanying the application, namely, the package of supplemental Form 5s with the contact information for the individual employees purporting to support the application, are insufficient evidence to establish that 40% of the employees in the bargaining unit were in support of the application and that the applicant should be precluded from filing the signed statements of employees received by the Board on February 1, 2016

B. Issue 2

35        Assuming the applicant is permitted to file the signed statements of employees in support of the application, and no signed statement was filed for employees who were identified on a Form 5, should the Board consider those employees in determining employee support?

C. Issue 3

36        Assuming the applicant is permitted to file the signed statements in support of the application, should the applicant be permitted to file statements of employees for whom no Form 5 was submitted at the time of the application?

D. Issue 4

37        Assuming the applicant is permitted to file signed statements of employees who also were identified on the Form 5 in support of the application, should employees who subsequently signed a statement of opposition be removed from the application?

E. Issue 5

38        Assuming the applicant is permitted to file signed statements of employees in support of the application and for whom a Form 5 was submitted, should employees who supported the application and who were subsequently laid off be removed from the application as they have no continuing interest in the workplace or in the status of the bargaining unit?

F. Issue 6

There is a dispute concerning the list of employees in the bargaining unit as of October 26, 2015

III. The statutory and regulatory provisions

39        On June 16, 2015, the revocation provisions of the Act were amended by the Employees’ Voting Rights Act (S.C. 2014, c. 40; “the EVRA”). Before that date, the revocation provisions read as follows:

94 (1)Any person claiming to represent a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit bound by a collective agreement or an arbitral award may apply to the Board for a declaration that the employee organization that is certified as the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit no longer represents a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit.

…

95 After the application is made, the Board may order that a representation vote be taken in order to determine whether a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit no longer wish to be represented by the employee organization that is the bargaining agent for that bargaining unit. The provisions of subsection 65(2) apply in relation to the taking of the vote.

96 If, after hearing the application, the Board is satisfied that a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit no longer wish to be represented by the employee organization, it must revoke the certification of the employee organization as the bargaining agent.

40        Subsection 94(1) and sections 95 and 96 of the Act were replaced by the following:

94 (1) Any person claiming to represent at least 40% of the employees in the bargaining unit bound by a collective agreement or an arbitral award may apply to the Board for a declaration that the employee organization that is certified as the bargaining agent for the bargaining unit no longer represents a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit.

…

95 If the Board is satisfied on the basis of written evidence that, as of the date of the filing of an application for a declaration made under subsection 94(1), at least 40% of the employees in the bargaining unit no longer wish to have the employee organization represent them, the Board shall order that a representation vote be taken. The provisions of subsection 65(2) apply in relation to the taking of the vote.

96 If, after conducting the representation vote referred to in section 95, the Board is satisfied that a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit who have cast a ballot no longer wish to be represented by the employee organization, it must revoke the certification of the employee organization as the bargaining agent.

IV. Discussion and reasons

41        The provisions of the Act were modified to provide that an applicant representing at least 40% of the employees in the bargaining unit as opposed to an applicant representing the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit would be permitted to apply for a declaration that the employee organization certified as the bargaining agent no longer represents a majority of the employees in the unit.

42        If the Board is satisfied on the basis of the written evidence that as of the date of filing of an application, at least 40% of the employees in the unit no longer wish to have the employee organization represent them, then the Board no longer has any discretion as to whether to conduct a representation vote, as the EVRA made it mandatory.

43        Also of significance, the provisions of the Act,before their amendment, did not expressly address the question of when exactly the Board was to determine the wishes of the employees in the unit. Section 96, as it then read, directed the Board to revoke the certification of a bargaining agent after the hearing of the application if it was satisfied that the majority of the employees in the unit no longer wished to be represented by the employee organization.

44        Section 95 as amended provides that it is the date of the filing of the application for revocation that is relevant for determining whether at least 40% of the employees in the unit no longer wish to be represented by the employee organization and if so the Board is mandated to hold a secret ballot vote.

45        The Regulations with respect to the procedure for revocation of certification were not amended subsequent to the amendments to the Act by the EVRA.

46        Section 44 (g) of the Interpretation Act provides as follows:

47        All regulations made under the repealed enactment remain in force and are deemed to have been made under the new enactment in so far as they are not inconsistent with the new enactment, until they are repealed or other is made in their stead.

48        The Regulations provide as follows:

…

36 An application for revocation of certification under section 94, 98, 99 or 100 of the Act shall be filed in Form 5 of the schedule.

37 On receipt of the application for revocation of certification, the Board must

(a) fix a closing date that is a date that will allow sufficient time for the employees to be notified and for them to respond, considering the number of employees who are affected by the application for revocation of certification and the locations at which they are employed, and that is no less than 15 days and no more than 40 days after the day on which the application for revocation of certification is filed; and

(b) notify the bargaining agent and, if the applicant is a person other than the employer, the employer of the closing date.

38 (1) The Board must provide the employer with as many copies of the notice of the application for revocation of certification as are necessary considering the number of employees who are affected by the application and the locations at which they are employed.

(2) On receipt of the copies of the notice, an employer shall post them, until the closing date, in conspicuous places where they are most likely to come to the attention of the employees who are affected by the application.

(3) Immediately after the closing date, the employer shall file a statement that the employer has complied with subsection (2).

39 (1) A bargaining agent shall file a reply to the application for revocation of certification, on or before the closing date, in Form 6 of the schedule.

(2) The reply shall be accompanied by a copy of any collective agreement or arbitral award applicable to the employees who are affected by the application.

40 If an employee or a group of employees is affected by an application for revocation of certification and is in opposition to it, the employee or group of employees may, on or before the closing date, file a statement of opposition in Form 4 of the schedule.

41 A person may file an application to amend an application for revocation of certification, reply or statement of opposition filed by that person.

42 (1) An application for revocation of certification shall be accompanied by the documentary evidence on which the applicant intends to rely to satisfy the Board that the bargaining agent no longer represents a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit.

(2) Any supplementary documentary evidence shall be filed on or before the closing date for the application.

43 The documentary evidence that the bargaining agent no longer represents a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit shall be in writing and shall be signed by the employees supporting the application.

44 To verify that the bargaining agent no longer represents a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board may require the employer to file a list that identifies all of the employees in respect of whom the application is filed, along with either the specimen signatures of the employees, the home addresses of the employees, or both.

Representation Votes

45 (1) If the Board appoints a returning officer to conduct a representation vote, the returning officer shall determine the validity of ballots in accordance with any directions given by the Board under subsection 65(2) of the Act and shall report the results of the vote to the Board.

(2) The returning officer may appoint one or more persons, as required, to assist in the conduct of the vote, other than in any tasks referred to in subsection (1).

…

49        I now turn to a discussion of the issues.

A. Issue 1

50        Should the application be dismissed on the basis that the initiating documents, namely, a number of applications for revocation on the Board’s Form 5 are insufficient evidence to establish that 40% of the employees in the bargaining unit are in support of the application and that the applicant should be precluded from relying upon the signed statements of employees received by the Board on February 1, 2016

51        The bargaining agent has objected to the applicant being given what it asserts is a second opportunity to file evidence in support of the application and objected to the applicant being afforded an unduly extended period during which the applicant might potentially add support to the initial application. The bargaining agent’s position was that the application should be dismissed immediately, and it requested a Board declaration to that effect.

52        Following the initial application, the applicant subsequently filed with the Board individual letters signed by the employees outlining their personal reasons for supporting the application. All the letters were dated before the date of the filing of the application with the Board. A comparison of the signatures on the letters with the signatures provided by the employer indicated that the signatures were authentic. The representative of the applicant advised the Board that he believed the filing of the individual applications for revocation on the Board’s form 5 met the Board’s requirements and that before the application was filed, he was in possession of signed letters from each of the employees who supported the application.

53        The Board’s regulations provide that an application for revocation is to be accompanied by the documentary evidence on which the applicant intends to rely. This regulation is consistent with the Act as amended. The Regulations also contemplate that there be a closing date that will allow sufficient time for employees to be notified of the application and for them to respond thereto which is not less than 15 days and not more than 40 days after the application; that there can be statements of opposition filed; that the application can be amended. As discussed supra the Regulations were not amended subsequent to the enactment of the EVA and it would appear that these regulations are inconsistent with the Act’s requirement that it is the date of the filing of the application when the Board determines whether the applicant has the requisite support.

54        Subsection 241(1) of the Act provides as follows: “No proceeding under this Act is invalid by reason only of a defect in form or a technical irregularity.”

55        The Canada Labour Relations Board, in the case of Schembri (1998), 40 C.L.R.B.R. (2d) 257, dealt with a situation in which the applicant had not provided the date on which each employee had signed a petition in support of an application for revocation. That Board in that case ruled that this was a defect in form provided for under section 114 of the Canada Labour Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. L-6), which provision is similar to section 241 of the Act.

56        In the circumstances, I conclude that the failure of the applicant to provide the individual letters signed by the employees before the date of the application for revocation and that were in the applicant’s representative’s possession, since he mistakenly believed that individual applications for revocation on the Board’s form 5 completed on behalf of all employees who supported the application was sufficient evidence of support, is a technical irregularity and that the applicant is permitted to rely on the letters as evidence of support.

B. Issue 2

57        If no signed statement was filed for employees although they were identified on a Form 5 should the Board consider those employees in determining employee support?

58        Clearly, the Regulations require that the documentary evidence be in writing and that it be signed by the employee supporting the application. In the absence of a signed statement, the applicant cannot rely solely on the Form 5s for employee support.

C. Issue 3

59        Should the applicant be permitted to rely solely upon the signed statements of employees support if there was no Form 5 submitted for those employees at the time of the application?

60        Section 95 of the Act as amended states that:

If the Board is satisfied on the basis of written evidence that, as of the date of the filing of an application for a declaration … at least 40% of the employees in the bargaining unit no longer wish to have the employee organization represent them, the Board shall order that a representation vote be taken… .

[Emphasis added]

61        Even though the Regulations contemplate the filing of supplementary evidence of employees who support the application after the date of the application for revocation, as noted supra the Regulations are inconsistent with the requirement of the Act that the Board determine as of the date of the filing of the application whether the applicant has the requisite support. I conclude that allowing the applicant to rely on evidence of employee support filed subsequent to the application but for whom no Form 5 was completed and filed is inconsistent with the Act, is not supplementary evidence of support and is more than technical irregularity, and should not be permitted.

D. Issue 4

62        Should employees for whom a Form 5 was filed and who signed a statement in support of the application for revocation but who subsequently signed a statement of opposition be removed from the application?

63        As noted supra-the Regulations contemplate that employees affected by an application for revocation may, after the date of the application, file a statement of opposition prior to the closing date. Presumably, this would include employees who supported the application for revocation by a signed statement and then, after its filing, changed their position. This provision is inconsistent with the Act as amended that provides that it is the date of the filing of the application when the Board determines whether the applicant has the requisite support to trigger a secret ballot vote of all employees in the bargaining unit. I conclude that employees who supported the application as of the date of filing should not be removed from the application. In the event that a secret ballot vote is ordered, they will have an opportunity to express their true wishes. To a similar effect, see Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Rooley and United Steelworkers, 2015 CIRB 759.

E. Issue 5

64        Should employees for whom a Form 5 was filed and who signed a statement in support of the application and who were laid off be removed from the application?

65        The bargaining agent filed with the Board letters to employees advising them of their layoffs. A review of the letters relevant to the application indicates that employees who were subject to layoff were laid off subsequent to the application for revocation. All the relevant letters advised the employees that effective the date of their layoff, they would be placed on the part-time layoff list for a period of up to nine months, during which they would be eligible for recall in accordance with their collective agreement, and that while on layoff they might be eligible to fill certain vacancies that could arise within the bargaining unit.

66        The bargaining agent argues that many of the employees who were laid off at the close of the golfing season have no continuing interest in the workplace or in the status of the bargaining unit. Specifically, employees who have not accepted at least one recall (those with 2015 seniority dates) have no demonstrated interest in the continuing operations of the employer or the bargaining unit; they lack a sufficient connection to the workplace.

67        In supplementary submissions the bargaining agent submits that one employee was actually laid off on October 6, 2015 while the letter of lay off was dated October 26, 2015 and that another employee was laid off on September 27, 2015 while the letter of lay off was dated October 26, 2015. It is the union’s position that the employees should be excluded from the list for the purposes of calculating the 40% threshold.

68        The applicant did not agree with the bargaining agent that the two employees should be removed from the employee list as they were employed at the Edmonton garrison golf course, in accordance with the collective-bargaining agreement as seasonal workers and remained members of the bargaining unit. In addition they were protected by the collective a bargaining agreement specifically with respect to the right of recall based on their seniority.

69        The employer submits that the determination of who is eligible to vote must be made in accordance with the established case law and labour relations principles. Employees who are eligible to vote include those who were working on the date the application was filed in addition to those who were not at work but for whom there is a reasonable expectation of a return to work. From a labour relations policy perspective, the employer has concerns with the bargaining agent’s submission about the bargaining unit for the purposes of the application and vote. Bargaining agents negotiate job security provisions into collective agreements. One form of job security is layoff and recall that is longer than statutorily defined layoff periods (the length of time before a layoff is deemed a termination of employment). During the layoff period, employees maintain certain negotiated benefits, including the right to return to work (recall) for the duration of the negotiated recall in the event that bargaining unit work becomes available.

70        Clause 13.02(c) of the collective agreement provides a recall period of nine months before the loss of seniority. The bargaining agent has taken the position that employees with 2015 seniority who are now on layoff and who have not had the chance to accept a recall do not have a sufficient connection to the workplace. There is no basis to conclude at this time that employees with 2015 seniority will not return, will not have a sufficient connection to the workplace once the nine-month recall has expired, or have notified the employer that they will not be returning.

71        In Via Rail Canada Inc. (1997), 104 di 67, 38 C.L.R.B.R. (2d) 124, the Canada Labour Relations Board (CLRB) had to determine which employees of the employer were eligible to vote in a representation vote following a consolidation of the running trades bargaining units at Via Rail. The CLRB determined that employees eligible to vote included those in the active employee list of the employer as well as employees who had rights of recall during the preceding year and who had retained such rights.

72        I conclude that employees who supported the application for revocation, who were laid off at the end of the golfing season during October 2015 and those who were laid off subsequent to October 26, 2015, and who are subject to recall in the circumstances outlined by the employer continue to have sufficient connection to the workplace and will not be removed as applicants.

F. Issue No.6

Composition of the Bargaining Unit as of October 26, 2015

73          The bargaining agent submits an employee was hired in the fitness and sport facility in 2015 and started paying union dues in or about September 2015. The bargaining agent submits the person was employed on the date of the application although the person has since left the employ of CFB Edmonton.

74        It was the position of the applicant that if the employment status was confirmed by the employer the applicant did not contest adding the one employee to the list.

75        On May 24, 2016 the employer advised the Board that it had reviewed its records and that the employee concerned was a part-time temporary employee, and a member of the bargaining unit, as of October 26, 2015. The employer did not oppose adding the employee to the list.

76        Having reviewed the evidence, the Board is satisfied that at least 40% of the employees in the bargaining unit as of the date of filing of the application no longer wish to have the employee organization represent them.

77        Based on these findings, the Board has decided that pursuant to section 95 of the Act that a representation vote be taken pursuant to section 65(2) of the Act. Section 65 [2] of the act provides that when the Board orders that a representation vote be taken it is authorized to direct that the votes not be counted and that the ballot boxes be sealed. The Board is so directing in the circumstances of this case as there are allegations that the labour relations among the parties are being disrupted by virtue of the application in order to ensure that there is no further disruption to the relationship among the parties pending the final disposition of the bargaining agents motion that the application be dismissed due to employer dominance and inappropriate intervention in the process.

V. Order

78        The Board will include in the application for revocation those employees who completed the Form 5 application for revocation and who signed a statement of support for revocation before the date of the application, including those employees who were laid off at the end of the golfing season 2015 and subsequent to the date of the application and who were subject to recall.

79        The Board will exclude as applicants those employees who completed a Form 5 but who did not file a signed statement of support dated prior to the application and that it will exclude those employees who did not complete a Form 5 but who signed a statement of support. The Board has also decided that employees who supported the application as of the date of filing and who subsequently changed their positions should not be removed from the application.

80        The Board will include the part time temporary employee who was a member of the bargaining unit as of October 26, 2015.

81        It is ordered by the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board that pursuant to section 95 of the Act, a representation vote be taken in accordance with section 65(2) of the Act which applies in relation to the taking of the vote.

82        It is also ordered that the ballots cast be sealed and not counted until such time as the Board has disposed of the allegation by the bargaining agent that the application be dismissed due to employer dominance and inappropriate intervention in the process.

July 4, 2016.